rich gets richer

[Beowulf]

I don't hear any talk about taxing billionaires. I just hear talk about taxing people who make over $250,000. Why don't we talk about the effect this would have on small businesses and people who have worked hard their whole lives and taken big risks to finally make big money? There's a whole lot more of them than the very few super-rich.

This seems to be more about spiting the super-rich than actually doing something productive.

Voodoo economics? When will it finally dawn on us that it simply doesn't work that way?

 

[darkdog]

Voodoo economics? When will it finally dawn on us that it simply doesn't work that way?

Are you actually claiming that high taxes on businesses works better than low taxes on businesses? When you let businesses keep more of the money they make, they have a greater ability to grow, hire workers, and be more productive. That's much preferable to sending the money to Washington so they can waste it on social engineering programs or whatever.

So the real question is can individuals and businesses spend money in a more useful way than Washington? I think the track record on that is clear- yes they can.

 

[Beowulf]

Are you actually claiming that high taxes on businesses works better than low taxes on businesses? When you let businesses keep more of the money they make, they have a greater ability to grow, hire workers, and be more productive. That's much preferable to sending the money to Washington so they can waste it on social engineering programs or whatever.

So the real question is can individuals and businesses spend money in a more useful way than Washington? I think the track record on that is clear- yes they can.

Sigh. By your questions I see you are a right winger. WHY do they ask nonsense questions to put into other people's mouths???? I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
I am saying BY TRACK RECORD voodoo economics do not work. It is based on the assumption that if we do not tax the rich, the money will trickle down to the lower classes through the creation of new businesses, jobs, etc. and so far all we see are more McJobs paying low wages while the rich get richer by creating corporations to continue the cycle. The middle class is disappearing now, and soon all that will be left will be the wealthy and their slaves. Corporationism is the cause of our ills, and it can happen only through capitalism. I do not have a solution, just observations.

 

[kokonut]

If people are givers they give before, during and after being President.

Why wouldn't they continue giving while they're President?

I've never been President but I've been giving a higher percentage of my income than Obama, even when I was poor, so being President has nothing to do with donations.

In keeping with White House tradition, the president and vice president publicly released their returns on Thursday for national Tax Day. It turns out Republican George Bush opened his wallet substantially wider than Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden while residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

In 2009, the Barack and Michelle Obama donated 5.9 percent of their income to charity and Joe Biden gave away 1.4 percent of his. While in office, Bush routinely donated more than 10 percent of his income each year.

.
.
.

According to Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, religious people are 25 percent more likely to donate than non-religious people. Religious people are also 38 percent more likely to be conservative.

In 2007, the giving broke down on party lines like this:

Cheney: 5.5 %

Bush: 17.6%

McCain: 27 %

Obama: 5.6 %

Clinton 14.7 %

Biden: 0.3 %

Biden has a particularly stingy history — right before the 2008 election

USA Today reported that the Bidens donated an average $369 a year over the past 10 years, 0.2 percent of their income for the decade.

On Tax Day, returns show Obama and Biden fall short of Bush on charitable giving | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.

The New York Times > Log In

Heh.

 

[darkdog]

Sigh. By your questions I see you are a right winger. WHY do they ask nonsense questions to put into other people's mouths???? I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

So now, merely asking relevant questions is "putting questions into people's mouths" or something. If that makes me a right-winger, then so be it, but it's a question any clear thinking person should ask. To call that a "right wing" question only insults the quality of thinking among the left. After all, you're arguing we should take more money away from small business and give it to the government. That might make sense if the government can put the money to better use than individuals and small businesses. If that's the case, why not send all of our money to the federal government and have them spend it all for us in their vast wisdom? However, if we acknowledge that government will put it to a less productive use, then what will more taxation accomplish?

I am saying BY TRACK RECORD voodoo economics do not work. It is based on the assumption that if we do not tax the rich, the money will trickle down to the lower classes through the creation of new businesses, jobs, etc. and so far all we see are more McJobs paying low wages while the rich get richer by creating corporations to continue the cycle. The middle class is disappearing now, and soon all that will be left will be the wealthy and their slaves. Corporationism is the cause of our ills, and it can happen only through capitalism. I do not have a solution, just observations.

For the record, on the whole, median individual earnings have been increasing over the decades. But even if we assume that what you say is true, how will increasing taxation on the rich help? And why are you saying you don't have a solution while you're advocating for higher taxes on the $250,000+ crowd?

One more thing. Capitalism, by definition, is an economy without political influence. Pure capitalism wouldn't work because there needs to be government to enforce economic rules. Corporatism, on the other hand, is collusion between corporations and the state. To move away from corporatism would require moving towards a more free market, or capitalist, economy. What other economic system would you prefer over capitalism and how well has it worked in comparison?

Hmmm... I think I just put about 5 more questions in your mouth with this post. Well, open up, I guess.

 

[Beowulf]

So now, merely asking relevant questions is "putting questions into people's mouths" or something. If that makes me a right-winger, then so be it, but it's a question any clear thinking person should ask. To call that a "right wing" question only insults the quality of thinking among the left. After all, you're arguing we should take more money away from small business and give it to the government. That might make sense if the government can put the money to better use than individuals and small businesses. If that's the case, why not send all of our money to the federal government and have them spend it all for us in their vast wisdom? However, if we acknowledge that government will put it to a less productive use, then what will more taxation accomplish?


For the record, on the whole, median individual earnings have been increasing over the decades. But even if we assume that what you say is true, how will increasing taxation on the rich help? And why are you saying you don't have a solution while you're advocating for higher taxes on the $250,000+ crowd?

One more thing. Capitalism, by definition, is an economy without political influence. Pure capitalism wouldn't work because there needs to be government to enforce economic rules. Corporatism, on the other hand, is collusion between corporations and the state. To move away from corporatism would require moving towards a more free market, or capitalist, economy. What other economic system would you prefer over capitalism and how well has it worked in comparison?

Hmmm... I think I just put about 5 more questions in your mouth with this post. Well, open up, I guess.

I agree with the bolded. Thanks for pointing out the error in my thinking. I was pondering the situations of orchard owners who make their migrant workers pay all their earnings every day for rent, food, and supplies, and it struck me how similar it is in today's world. Corporatism ensures that a worker could conceivably turn over his entire wages to a single person, and that rubs me the wrong way.
It sounds like you are far more knowledgeable about this matter than I am, and that is good. Maybe you are happy with the way things are going today, I have no idea, but it makes me nervous, lol. Thanks for the replies.

 

[netrox]

HAHAHAHAHA!

"Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars:

Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels.

That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes."

So much for wonderful tax cuts!

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

 

[Reba]

...nuff saz

.ok.

 

[Jiro]

.On Tax Day, returns show Obama and Biden fall short of Bush on charitable giving | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

The New York Times > Log In

Heh.

1. percentage doesn't mean anything because it is extremely misleading

Example of Misleading Percentage:

-Bush donated 17.6% of his Presidential salary ($487,000) = $85,712
-Obama donated 5.6% of personal wealth reaped from Nobel Prize and book sales ($7.7 millions) = $431,200

2. so how much did they ACTUALLY donate in dollar value?

 

[Jiro]

If people are givers they give before, during and after being President.

Why wouldn't they continue giving while they're President?

I've never been President but I've been giving a higher percentage of my income than Obama, even when I was poor, so being President has nothing to do with donations.

possibly a conflict of interest?

Beside most Presidents have done charity programs after the Presidency - like Bill Clinton and GWB for Haiti (remember GWB's wipe on Clinton's shirt? ).

I asked you the question because you are much older than me. You have gone thru several more Presidents than I. And you have worked as a journalist... which means you are far more informed than I am in news. Since you can't recall the President donating a significant amount for charity purpose... this implies that the President doesn't usually do that while in office.

 

[Reba]

1. percentage doesn't mean anything because it is extremely misleading

How is a percentage misleading? That's the only way to make a comparison.

2. so how much did they ACTUALLY donate in dollar value?

What does that matter if you have the percentages? Those are more revealing. The dollar amounts are provided at some of the sites if you really want them. But they aren't meaningful without the percentages.

If anything, the wealthy should be donating even higher percentages of their income than lower income people do. But often it's just the opposite happening.

 

[nobody456]

the mtn dew?

:d

 

[Reba]

possibly a conflict of interest?

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard of.

Beside most Presidents have done charity programs after the Presidency - like Bill Clinton and GWB for Haiti (remember GWB's wipe on Clinton's shirt? ).

So? Lots of people who aren't wealthy do lots of charity work all the time, not just for special events. They just don't get the press coverage.

I asked you the question because you are much older than me. You have gone thru several more Presidents than I.

Ever since Harry Truman.

And you have worked as a journalist... which means you are far more informed than I am in news. Since you can't recall the President donating a significant amount for charity purpose... this implies that the President doesn't usually do that while in office.

I didn't say that no presidents ever gave significant amounts of money to charities.

Also, I wasn't keeping track of presidential giving every year of my life, and presidents weren't always required to reveal their tax records in the past.

I think our main concern should be the administration that is in power now. The others are past.

 

[Jiro]

That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard of.

and a potential political disaster. The President donating money to a certain organization say....... Red Cross which implies credibility (with the grace of Presidential endorsement).... and then later.... exposed by one with agenda such as Red Cross official misusing the fund. It's too much of liability risk for the President.

So? Lots of people who aren't wealthy do lots of charity work all the time, not just for special events. They just don't get the press coverage.

Ever since Harry Truman.

I didn't say that no presidents ever gave significant amounts of money to charities.

Also, I wasn't keeping track of presidential giving every year of my life, and presidents weren't always required to reveal their tax records in the past.

I think our main concern should be the administration that is in power now. The others are past.

well that contradicts with your previous post where I asked if it's measured by charity donation - "It shows something about his character."

 

[Reba]

and a potential political disaster. The President donating money to a certain organization say....... Red Cross which implies credibility (with the grace of Presidential endorsement).... and then later.... exposed by one with agenda such as Red Cross official misusing the fund. It's too much of liability risk for the President.

Presidents, just like everyone else, should be careful about the organizations to which they donate. That doesn't mean they should hang on to their money out of fear.

It just sounds like you're excusing their stinginess.

well that contradicts with your previous post where I asked if it's measured by charity donation - "It shows something about his character."

No, it doesn't. Where the information is available, if it shows the person is not generous, then it does reflect on his character.

 

[Jiro]

Presidents, just like everyone else, should be careful about the organizations to which they donate. That doesn't mean they should hang on to their money out of fear.

It just sounds like you're excusing their stinginess.

but they were never stingy after the Presidency anyway. Blame the media and certain people whose sole purpose of their existence is to vilify anybody. disgusting. It's better that way to be "stingy" to not ruin the charity organizations.

No, it doesn't. Where the information is available, if it shows the person is not generous, then it does reflect on his character.

we can do that after the Presidency. So far - Obama has been quite generous. Donating all of his Nobel Prize money? nice. Michelle donating her inaugural dress. I don't need to imagine what will they do after the Presidency.

 

[Reba]

but they were never stingy after the Presidency anyway. Blame the media and certain people whose sole purpose of their existence is to vilify anybody. disgusting. It's better that way to be "stingy" to not ruin the charity organizations.

That's ridiculous.

There is no excuse for any President to be stingy about giving donations.

They should be careful about to which organizations they give, as should anyone, but that doesn't mean they should quit donating.

Was Obama regularly giving over 10 percent of his income before he became a presidential candidate?

we can do that after the Presidency.

Which living former presidents are giving over 10 percent now?

So far - Obama has been quite generous. Donating all of his Nobel Prize money? nice. Michelle donating her inaugural dress. I don't need to imagine what will they do after the Presidency.

What has Obama's average giving percentage been for the last three years or more?

I believe all the First Ladies donate their inaugural outfits.

What do you think of Biden's lack of giving?

 

[netrox]

1. percentage doesn't mean anything because it is extremely misleading


2. so how much did they ACTUALLY donate in dollar value?

Wow, you got them! I didn't think of that.

 

[Reba]

Not even 6%; nothing to brag about.

Tax returns released by the White House show Obama's adjusted gross income was $5,505,409 in 2009 - mostly from best-selling book sales.

On that, he owed $1,792,414 in federal taxes, or a third of his income, but overpaid by $8,287. The Obamas applied the refund to next year's bill.

The Obamas' total gross income was $5,623,690, before adjustments.

The President offset his tab somewhat by being very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.

In addition, the Obamas donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize income to charity and paid $163,303 in Illinois state income taxes.

Because Obama donated the entire Nobel award to charity, it didn't count as income and he wasn't able to claim a deduction for those gifts.

Joe and Jill Biden aren't nearly so well-off. The vice president and his wife's income was $333,182, on which they paid $71,147 to Uncle Sam. They gave away $4,820 to charity and paid $13,897 in state income taxes.

The returns show that the Obamas made about as much in charitable contributions as the Bidens earned in 2009.

Among the 10 charities who received contributions from Obama's Nobel cash are the Posse Foundation, a New York-based group that got $125,000 to provide scholarships for students with extraordinary academic and leadership potential.

The Obamas' income included $374,460 in wages, $13,473 in interest, $12,018 in dividends and $4,230 in other income. The overwhelming majority of their income - nearly $5.2 million - was from book royalties.

Like millions of Americans, the Obamas reduced their tax bite by contributing - in their case $49,000 - to a retirement plan.

Read more: President Obama tax return reveals he made $5.5M in 2009, largely from book sales

 

[TXgolfer]

Wow, you got them! I didn't think of that.

oh really??????

So it's about the amount paid and not the %????

Cool a guy that makes a million pays way more in taxes
at a 10% tax rate than a guy that makes $50,000 pays at a 50% tax rate. Does that work for you????

Funny all those times you preached that the rich need
to pay more I thought you were referring to a higher rate.